Minor buglet: the *.spec file for linux needs to be updated for 2.6.1. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
James Turnbull
2010-Sep-14 22:03 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] Small bug: puppet.spec still refers to 2.6.0
Forrie wrote:> Minor buglet: the *.spec file for linux needs to be updated for > 2.6.1. >This is usually done by the packagers at some point. We only maintain these specs for convenience. Regards James Turnbull -- Puppet Labs - http://www.puppetlabs.com C: 503-734-8571 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Douglas Garstang
2010-Sep-14 22:28 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] Small bug: puppet.spec still refers to 2.6.0
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:03 PM, James Turnbull <james@puppetlabs.com> wrote:> Forrie wrote: >> Minor buglet: the *.spec file for linux needs to be updated for >> 2.6.1. >> > > This is usually done by the packagers at some point. We only maintain > these specs for convenience.It seems like an inconvenience in it''s correct form. Doug. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Nigel Kersten
2010-Sep-14 22:34 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] Small bug: puppet.spec still refers to 2.6.0
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Douglas Garstang <doug.garstang@gmail.com> wrote:> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:03 PM, James Turnbull <james@puppetlabs.com> wrote: >> Forrie wrote: >>> Minor buglet: the *.spec file for linux needs to be updated for >>> 2.6.1. >>> >> >> This is usually done by the packagers at some point. We only maintain >> these specs for convenience. > > It seems like an inconvenience in it''s correct form.I agree with you. I quite strongly feel that the puppet source shouldn''t include the packaging stuff, but instead have a readme of some kind that links to all the package maintenance websites/repos/whatever. Douglas, want to file a bug to see how many other people agree with us? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Douglas Garstang
2010-Sep-14 22:51 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] Small bug: puppet.spec still refers to 2.6.0
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Nigel Kersten <nigelk@google.com> wrote:> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Douglas Garstang > <doug.garstang@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:03 PM, James Turnbull <james@puppetlabs.com> wrote: >>> Forrie wrote: >>>> Minor buglet: the *.spec file for linux needs to be updated for >>>> 2.6.1. >>>> >>> >>> This is usually done by the packagers at some point. We only maintain >>> these specs for convenience. >> >> It seems like an inconvenience in it''s correct form. > > I agree with you. I quite strongly feel that the puppet source > shouldn''t include the packaging stuff, but instead have a readme of > some kind that links to all the package maintenance > websites/repos/whatever.I agree with you there. If the puppet people aren''t going to do it correctly, they''re better off not doing it at all. Lets play rock paper scissors to see who files a bug... Rock... Doug -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Nigel Kersten
2010-Sep-14 23:21 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] Small bug: puppet.spec still refers to 2.6.0
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Douglas Garstang <doug.garstang@gmail.com> wrote:> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Nigel Kersten <nigelk@google.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Douglas Garstang >> <doug.garstang@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:03 PM, James Turnbull <james@puppetlabs.com> wrote: >>>> Forrie wrote: >>>>> Minor buglet: the *.spec file for linux needs to be updated for >>>>> 2.6.1. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is usually done by the packagers at some point. We only maintain >>>> these specs for convenience. >>> >>> It seems like an inconvenience in it''s correct form. >> >> I agree with you. I quite strongly feel that the puppet source >> shouldn''t include the packaging stuff, but instead have a readme of >> some kind that links to all the package maintenance >> websites/repos/whatever. > > I agree with you there. If the puppet people aren''t going to do it > correctly, they''re better off not doing it at all. > > Lets play rock paper scissors to see who files a bug...That''s uncharitable and unfair. The package maintainers are responsible for their packages. The spec file was in the upstream source as a convenience to make it easier for people to rebuild packages themselves, but the maintainers are still responsible for the package and spec files. This is pretty standard open source ecosystem stuff. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Todd Zullinger
2010-Sep-18 02:43 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] Small bug: puppet.spec still refers to 2.6.0
Nigel Kersten wrote:> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Douglas Garstang >> Lets play rock paper scissors to see who files a bug... > > That''s uncharitable and unfair.Indeed. I usually joke that all complaints should be submitted in unified diff format. I actually feel bad anytime I file a bug without a patch.> The package maintainers are responsible for their packages. > The spec file was in the upstream source as a convenience to make it > easier for people to rebuild packages themselves, but the maintainers > are still responsible for the package and spec files.I think it might be reasonable to have a rake task to help automate creating packages for various systems. But I''ve never spent the time to try and implement that, so I''m in no position to say that''s how it should be. Doing it well would be nice, but more involved than a few lines of code. I think you''d want to default to detecting the current OS and version (via facter, naturally) but perhaps allow for building against other versions (or even similar OS''s, like building for RHEL/CentOS on a Fedora host). That gets messy quickly. I''m not sure what''s so wrong with grabbing the packages provided for various distros/OS''s really. I know for Fedora and RHEL/CentOS I try to keep my personal repository updated quickly and/or have the packages in the official repositories. For Debian/Ubuntu, building from a git clone is fairly easy (makes me a tad jealous even :). Around the time of new releases, we (as in Fedora/EPEL maintainers) usually don''t push updates into the official repositories as quickly, in order to let the early adopters help flush out unintended regressions or changes in behavior. I think it''s reasonable to expect that folks following this list and eager for the very latest packages either know where they can get them or are capable of building them on their own -- if s/2.6.0/2.6.1, screws anyone, they shouldn''t be building their own packages in the first place ;). I can try to submit the trivial patch to change the version from 2.6.0 to 2.6.1, but really, if we''re going to keep the rpm spec files in the tarball, someone that cares deeply (i.e. someone that has the balls to bitch about it on the list and not be willing to file a bug) should work on a patch to make this happen more automatically. That way when James does a release it just works, and doesn''t add more work to all that he and many other folks already do to prepare, test, and push a new release. In the interim, you''re welcome to use the packages (binary and/or source) that I''ve prepared for Fedora and RHEL/CentOS: http://tmz.fedorapeople.org/repo/puppet/ (Note that I provide these packages without warranty, and while I''m grateful for any testing and reports of packaging issues, I''m not at all likely to respond quickly or kindly anyone demanding any sort of support from me for them.) -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain. -- Lily Tomlin